↓ Skip to main content

Nonlinear response speedup in bimodal visual-olfactory object identification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nonlinear response speedup in bimodal visual-olfactory object identification
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01477
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Höchenberger, Niko A. Busch, Kathrin Ohla

Abstract

Multisensory processes are vital in the perception of our environment. In the evaluation of foodstuff, redundant sensory inputs not only assist the identification of edible and nutritious substances, but also help avoiding the ingestion of possibly hazardous substances. While it is known that the non-chemical senses interact already at early processing levels, it remains unclear whether the visual and olfactory senses exhibit comparable interaction effects. To address this question, we tested whether the perception of congruent bimodal visual-olfactory objects is facilitated compared to unimodal stimulation. We measured response times (RT) and accuracy during speeded object identification. The onset of the visual and olfactory constituents in bimodal trials was physically aligned in the first and perceptually aligned in the second experiment. We tested whether the data favored coactivation or parallel processing consistent with race models. A redundant-signals effect was observed for perceptually aligned redundant stimuli only, i.e., bimodal stimuli were identified faster than either of the unimodal components. Analysis of the RT distributions and accuracy data revealed that these observations could be explained by a race model. More specifically, visual and olfactory channels appeared to be operating in a parallel, positively dependent manner. While these results suggest the absence of early sensory interactions, future studies are needed to substantiate this interpretation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 32%
Psychology 5 26%
Computer Science 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,410,599
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,715
of 29,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,917
of 274,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#220
of 538 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 538 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.